NOTES ON COTJ.F.CTINO. 107 



Parsons, whose name will suggest to all Essex collectors thoughts of 

 Pltorodeatna sinarofidario, Malacnsnma (■astrensis. Papilin mochaon and 

 Th'pressaria defiresnella. August was a very poor month — Ephippiphora 

 focnella (worn) occurred on the 2nd ; Sphaeroeampa ictericana, the largest 

 I had ever seen, and Avf/i/rolepia hadiana the smallest example I had ever 

 seen (5'" from tip to tip) on the 8th, on a leaf of burdock at North 

 Shoebury ; Hi/droccia nictitam on a head of knapweed, and B. praean- 

 lliista on a poplar trunk at Vange on the 16th. In September, larv,v of 

 (TracilariannuKsrUawere common in blistered leaves of mugwort at Hhoe- 

 buryness ; /.'. awiustinrana emerged on the 18th; I'l/romcifi canliii and 

 A'///.s/rt//r//»//?(7 were common, andlarvfpof Sjiilodenpalcali^ rather scai'ce at 

 North Shoebury on the 20th ; Ar^riiin fonrolvuli was seen at the electric 

 light in Southend on the 23rd, and larvfe of (Jiirullia asti'n's were quite 

 common on aster near Shoeburyness on the 27th. In October Pyrovifix 

 rardvi was very common, I noticed large numbers on the 7th between 

 North Fambridge and Woodham Ferris ; S. fabriciana was on nearly 

 every fiowerhead at Barting on the 8th ; larvae of Eupithecia 

 KHCcenturiota were very scarce on mugwort at North Shoebury on the 

 10th ; larvfp of Ehidea sawhiiraliK on elder at North Shoebury on the 

 IStb. November 15th, cases of Colmphnra trofilndytt'lla (very like those 

 of the insect I know as wnritimella and obtained from sea- wormwood) on 

 EiipatnriiDii, and larvte of [.cioptilnx uiicrodactuhn^ were not uncommon 

 in stems of Eiijiatoriiim at North Shoebury. (irarilaria siiiiwicUo. 

 always common, was abundant during the past season. — F. G. 

 Whittle, 8, Marine Avenue, Southend, .lamiary IQtli, 1904. 



Hydroecia paltjdis and H. nictitans. — As notes concerning these 

 species from different localities may be useful, I may record that I get 

 a small dark orange-red insect here in the woods, which I have always 

 considered to be H. nictitans, and identical with an insect that I took 

 at sugar near Southampton, some years ago, also in a wood, towards 

 Eastleigh. I also take a considerably larger insect, which to my eye 

 always appeared distinct, at sugar, in Dawlish Warren, and which 

 exactly agrees with the fJ. paludis taken by Mr. Ovenden on the Med- 

 way marshes. I remember that on the first occasion on which I took 

 this insect Mr. Bower was with me, and we were both much struck 

 with it, but supposed that it must be a form of H . nictitaiis. — E. F. Stttdd, 

 M.A., Oxton, Exeter. Janvan/ 20th, 1904. 



At Torquay I have taken specimens very similar to those captured 

 at Wallasey, and on the " mosses." by Mr. Day, and probably the 

 same species as that taken by Mr. Studd at Dawlish Warren. These 

 insects vary a good deal in size, some of them being no larger than an 

 insect I take here, and which I assume to be the typical H. )uetitrivs. 

 These occur occasionally in fields round my house, and as this country 

 used to be entirely woodland, and is still very much wooded, this bears 

 out Mr. Tutt's remarks that f/. nictitmiH is essentially a wood, and //. 

 palndifi a marsh or coast, species. Looking at a row of the Torquay H. 

 paliidis side by side with a row of the insect I get here, there seems to be 

 a striking difference between the two species, and Mr. Tutt's remark, 

 that the reniform stigma is much more conspicuous in H. tiictita us than 

 in H. paliidis, iscertainly borne out in my specimens ; on the other hand 

 some of my Torquay specimens are of a decided red colour, although 

 even then they have, I think, a more glossy appearanct^ than //. iiiititaus. 

 The specimens I take here are neai'ly all of one form. — (Rev.) E. C. 

 Dobr^e Fox, M.A., Castle Moreton, Tewkesbury. Fehrnari/2vd. 1904. 



